Chronic Wound Repair and Healing in Older Adults: Current Status and Future Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults are more likely to have chronic wounds than younger people, and the effect of chronic wounds on quality of life is particularly profound in this population. Wound healing slows with age, but the basic biology underlying chronic wounds and the influence of age-associated changes on wound healing are poorly understood. Most studies have used in vitro approaches and various animal models, but observed changes translate poorly to human healing conditions. The effect of age and accompanying multimorbidity on the effectiveness of existing and emerging treatment approaches for chronic wounds is also unknown, and older adults tend to be excluded from randomized clinical trials. Poorly defined outcomes and variables; lack of standardization in data collection; and variations in the definition, measurement, and treatment of wounds also hamper clinical studies. The Association of Specialty Professors, in conjunction with the National Institute on Aging and the Wound Healing Society, held a workshop, summarized in this article, to explore the current state of knowledge and research challenges, engage investigators across disciplines, and identify research questions to guide future study of age-associated changes in chronic wound healing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it